House Republicans Repeat Calls for Second Special Counsel

House Republicans are upping their efforts in calling for a second special counsel…

House Republicans have renewed calls for a second special counsel to look into abuses committed by FBI, DOJ, NSA, and other top law enforcement agencies against the Trump campaign in an effort to aid the Clinton presidential bid.

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy and House Majority Whip Steve Scalise are among the Republicans on board with the recent callings, with evidence building to make their case over the past year. The most recent discovery was the Inspector General’s findings while investigating the FBI, leading to the firing of Andrew McCabe.

House Republicans sent a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions to consider their request. When asked about it by Fox News’ Shannon Bream, Sessions answered by saying he will, in fact, “consider it.”


Sen. Lindsey Graham Says Firing Mueller is an “Impeachable” Offense

Lindsey Graham often states possible wrongdoings by the president, but nothing like this.

Senator Graham talks impeachment if Trump were to fire special counsel Bob Mueller.

Senator Lindsey Graham went on the “Hugh Hewitt” show to show his support of Bob Mueller and his investigation and said that it would cause impeachment if Trump were to fire the special counsel.

Lindsey Graham has been a vocal critic of past calls from the Republican side to fire the special counsel and responded to several questions that asked about his position on the matter.

“If the President fired Robert Mueller, do you think that would be an impeachable offense?” Hewitt asked.

“Probably so, if he did it without cause, yeah,” Graham responded.

Another question, which asked why the Senator would call for the president’s impeachment if he fired Mueller, came shortly after.

“Now Angus King said no last hour. Why do you think it would be?”

“I think what the President will have done is stopped an investigation into whether or not his campaign colluded with the Russians, what effect the Russians had on the 2016 campaign,” Graham responded. “I can’t see it being anything other than a corrupt purpose.”

Graham’s reasons for supporting the special counsel run out when explaining the credibility and evidence uncovered so far by Mueller’s probe.

“I can’t think of a more upsetting moment in the rule of law to have an investigator looking at a president’s campaign as to whether or not they colluded with a foreign government, what kind of crimes may have been committed,” he said. “I’ve seen no evidence of collusion, but to stop investigation without cause, I think, would be a Constitutional crisis.”

The first thing we need to do is step back for a moment and investigate Graham’s statements. From what we can read from the interview, Graham is wholly supportive of the special counsel’s research into whether or not the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government to win the 2016 presidential election. Furthermore, Graham offers his support of a congressional impeachment vote against President Trump if he were to fire Robert Mueller, promptly ending the Russian investigation.

This is the mindset, unfortunately, of many of our congressional members. This mentality promotes the idea that if you are innocent, you should be able to act innocent, and therefore accept numerous investigations into you, your presidential campaign as well as its members, and your family. If you try to avert any investigation efforts conducted by your government, even if there is no evidence gained that show your guilt, you will be punished — in this case, Trump is threatened with impeachment, even from his own party.

Does Trump not get the fourth amendment? Does the fifth amendment apply to everyone except Donald Trump? These are the questions that some of our lawmakers do not take into account, or maybe they do, they just don’t care. They don’t care for many reasons, but reason number one is that they do not like Donald Trump, and are looking for any reason to impeach him, even if it means ousting your own party.


The Real Reason For McCabe’s Firing

The reasons for McCabe’s firing were many, but none of the reasons are what the press is saying…

Andrew McCabe was fired Friday for many reasons, but none of which were explained by the press.

The media have lost their minds since Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s firing Friday, and have sold the lie that Trump was the reason McCabe was forced to leave the FBI. This shows the true colors of the mainstream media, and how they are entirely willing to blame whatever they can on the president.

This situation was no different. Late Friday evening, the news came out that the Inspector General at the Justice Department had recommended the firing of McCabe. Attorney General Jeff Sessions accepted the recommendation just one day before McCabe was set to retire and receive almost $2 million in federal pension. McCabe left the FBI, and not long after his ousting sent a letter to Sessions, in which he called his firing an attempt to “discredit [him] as a witness.”

The media took this story and ran with it. From Reuters to The New York Times, the entire press told us that it was the president who fired McCabe, and he got rid of him because he was scared of the special council’s findings, and Sessions wanted to deny McCabe his pension because he was a threat to the president’s well being. This reporting would’ve been newsworthy had it been true.



The truth is that McCabe’s firing was due in part to his mishandling of information in the Clinton and Trump investigations. For example, during the Clinton investigation, McCabe and then-Director James Comey oversaw the Clinton email scandal, of which McCabe reportedly permitted two FBI officials to provide information to several reporters, including Devlin Barrett, a former Wall Street Journal reporter.

Evidence points to senior FBI Attorney Lisa Page being one of the officials mentioned in the Inspector General’s memo to the Justice Department.

Michael Horowitz, the current IG for the Department of Justice, suspected Page’s involvement in the leaking to the press after reading texts between Page and Peter Strzok, an FBI counterintelligence official. Their back-and-forth texts assured Horowitz that their bias was undeniable and furthermore proved their involvement in the leaking of information during the Clinton investigation.


McCabe’s Involvement

What does this have to do with Andrew McCabe, you might ask? Well, at the time, McCabe testified under oath that he was authorized by then-Director Comey to inform the press of the FBI’s behind-the-scenes activities — he reiterates this in his statement to AG Jeff Sessions after his firing. This led people to believe that Director Comey had been presumptuous in allowing McCabe to provide the media with valuable information about the FBI’s handling of the Clinton investigation.

However, when Comey was asked about the recent leaks to the press at that time, he testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee that he did not authorize anyone to leak anything to the media, and further denied the possibility of the FBI giving the press any sensitive information regarding the Clinton investigation.

These statements from both FBI officials would naturally contradict each other and would lead to the conservative media trying to find out which law enforcement officer lied so we could prosecute their uncouth behavior.

As it turns out, Comey lied about not authorizing leaks to the press and actually did give permission to McCabe to grant approval to two FBI officials, with one likely being Lisa Page. McCabe was telling the truth in this matter, and Comey was lying all along.

This is the real reason McCabe was fired. He wasn’t fired because the president had a personal vendetta against the FBI official. The reasons were many, with just one of them being that he mishandled and leaked information about the Clinton investigation. Hopefully, this serves as a wake-up call to the FBI, as well as the rest of our top law enforcement agencies. You cannot expect to be above the law when holding senior positions in the executive branch; Andrew McCabe learned that the hard way.


Drudge Poll Records Three-quarters of Voters Want Mueller Fired

An open poll on Drudge Report reported three-quarters of the people who voted wanted President Trump to fire Special Council Robert Mueller and get rid of his investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials.

All visitors to the site can see the poll, which offers two options to the question “Should President Trump fire Mueller?”: yes or no. So far, about 76% of the participants have voted “yes,” while only 24% said “no.”

This came after several reports of Trump wanting to fire Mueller, whether it was from his twitter feed or through his many lawyers.

Tucker Carlson: We Should Be Able to Trust FBI, Law Enforcement

Tucker Carlson took the fake news over the weekend head-on, telling his viewers on Monday that former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe was not fired by Trump, contrary to the news cycle, and also that McCabe might be guilty of lying to the FBI about leaking information to the press.

At the opening of Carlson’s show on Fox News, he expressed his frustration at how the press handled the Inspector General’s recommendation for McCabe’s firing Friday. As he correctly stated, the mainstream media misled the American people to believe that it was because of the president’s tweet a few hours later that McCabe lost his job one day before his planned retirement.

Carlson’s statement about possible crimes committed by McCabe included his lying to the FBI, even as then-Director James Comey said under oath that he did not authorize any type of communication with the press.

Democratic Congressman Calls for Armed Resistance Against President Trump

A Democratic representative suggested at a town hall meeting…

Congressman Souzzi calls for armed resistance against President Trump

A Democratic representative suggested at a town hall meeting that took place on March 12 that the citizens should take up arms against President Trump if he continues to deter gun arguments with the Second Amendment.

According to The Daily Caller, representative Thomas Suozzi replied to an attendee’s question in a video that surfaced recently, in which they asked the congressman what the people are to do when the president fails to “execute a mandate.”

“It’s really a matter of putting public pressure on the president,” Suozzi answered. “This is where the Second Amendment comes in, quite frankly, because you know, what if the president was to ignore the courts? What would you do? What would we do?”

There are some truths to Suozzi’s statement. Unmistakably, there are two sides to what he is saying; being that he’s a Democrat, there is a considerable chance that he is against the president. However, if we take that out of the equation, we get something a little more interesting, because what if the president was a Democrat?

Suozzi did mention the reasons that could arouse problems with the American people. The rhetorical questions from the congressman are valid questions because there are going to be some evil people who try and eventually succeed in getting into political office. This is where we can agree.

Where we disagree is another story. While there are possible concerns, you would have with a controversial president like Obama, who ignored the state’s right to choose their own laws on gay marriage and instead had the Supreme Court decide, Trump brings about none of the concerns mentioned by Suozzi. If this is Suozzi’s argument, he needs to find a president who has actually done something unlawful, like Trump’s predecessor, Obama.